Biden Plans to Revoke Keystone Pipeline

[ShockTalk]

Processing flammable, viscous solvents into other flammable and viscous solvents is ALWAYS dangerous. So, unless someone (preferably an in-law to an old high school classmate or maybe your grocers cousin) can present some evidence that the oil received in Texas is inherently more dangerous than other oil already in Texas, I’m going to call bullshit.

Not BS, at least here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...it/5216015002/

"The $8 billion pipeline would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, through Nebraska and ultimately to refineries in Texas. "

[wufan]

Not BS, at least here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...it/5216015002/

"The $8 billion pipeline would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, through Nebraska and ultimately to refineries in Texas. "

Yeah, I got that part. Tar sands is just heavy crude oil. Heavy crude is refined in he Midwest and Texas. And other places. I don’t know why Canada’s heavy crude is more dangerous to refine than Venezuela’s.

[wufan]

Just to clarify my thoughts on this. Is it good or bad to have a pipeline that ships oil from one country to the next?

If the parties financing it believe it will be a net benefit, and they secured approval for financing and property, then why would the US government halt this build absent SIGNIFICANT concerns over safety? I don’t believe there are concerns about safety or environment that are new and extraordinary when compared to current transportation and refining activities.

Absent evidence that this pipeline is a novel threat, the stoppage of its construction is simply government picking winners and losers and that is antithetical to liberty.

[1972Shocker]

Chances are a lot of this will still be transported. Only know it go by rail and truck transport. Which is probably less environmentally friendly.

[wufan]

Chances are a lot of this will still be transported. Only know it go by rail and truck transport. Which is probably less environmentally friendly.

Things change, but the current transportation is to the Midwest. The Midwest refining is at capacity and can’t accept additional heavy crude from Canada; so it needs to be refined further south where there is capacity. Current transportation costs make the refining that far south cost prohibitive, and current construction costs make additional northern capacity cost prohibitive.

The amount of oil that stays in the ground in Canada will be much higher as a result of this EO. This is intentional, but to what ends, I’m not sure.

[C0|dB|00ded]

OK, so my ex-doctor's brother is a chemical engineer for one of the big oil companies. What this pipeline is actually supposed to do was to move massive amounts of tar sand from Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas, where it would live in sludge pits until the proper chemicals are applied to turn it into refinable oil. From what he told me, there are a lot of hazardous (actually dangerous) chemicals that are used in the process.

Not only that, the price (at the time and I have no idea now) to make this work is around $90 per barrel.

So unless someone can present a different set of ideas as to what this pipeline will be used for (other than moving tar sands from Alberta), I am not sure this is a viable move. There is a lot more oil that can be extracted economically and refined so as to provide a plentiful supply of oil at reasonable prices. And the hazardous chemicals used in the process will create toxic waste sites that will require future clean-up.

I'd rather see the canadians come up with their own process to turn the tar sand into oil so they have to put up with the toxic mess that will be created when this stuff gets refined. Not only that, perhaps the research they will do can bring the price/safety part of the equation down so that it might be safer in the future.

Spot on!

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

Tar sands oil is thicker, more acidic, and more corrosive than lighter conventional crude, and this ups the likelihood that a pipeline carrying it will leak. Indeed, one study found that between 2007 and 2010, pipelines moving tar sands oil in Midwestern states spilled three times more per mile than the U.S. national average for pipelines carrying conventional crude. Since it first went into operation in 2010, TC Energy’s original Keystone Pipeline System has leaked more than a dozen times; one incident in North Dakota sent a 60-foot, 21,000-gallon geyser of tar sands oil spewing into the air. Most recently, on October 31, 2019, the Keystone tar sands pipeline was temporarily shut down after a spill in North Dakota of reportedly more than 378,000 gallons. And the risk that Keystone XL will spill has only been heightened: A study published in early 2020, co-authored by TC Energy’s own scientists, found that the anti-corrosion coating on pipes for the project is defective from being stored outside and exposed to the elements for the last decade.

Complicating matters, leaks can be difficult to detect. And when tar sands oil does spill, it’s more difficult to clean up than conventional crude because it immediately sinks to the bottom of the waterway. People and wildlife coming into contact with tar sands oil are exposed to toxic chemicals, and rivers and wetland environments are at particular risk from a spill. (For evidence, recall the 2010 tar sands oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan, a disaster that cost Enbridge more than a billion dollars in cleanup fees and took six years to settle in court.) Keystone XL would cross agriculturally important and environmentally sensitive areas, including hundreds of rivers, streams, aquifers, and water bodies. One is Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water for millions as well as 30 percent of America’s irrigation water. A spill would be devastating to the farms, ranches, and communities that depend on these crucial ecosystems.

The tar sands industry is just as hard on the cradle of its business. Its mines are a blight on Canada’s boreal, where operations dig up and flatten forests to access the oil below, destroying wildlife habitat and one of the world’s largest carbon sinks. They deplete and pollute freshwater resources, create massive ponds of toxic waste, and threaten the health and livelihood of the First Nations people who live near them. Refining the sticky black gunk produces piles of petroleum coke, a hazardous, coal-like by-product. What’s more, the whole process of getting the oil out and making it usable creates three to four times the carbon pollution of conventional crude extraction and processing. “This isn’t your grandfather’s typical oil,” says Anthony Swift, director of NRDC’s Canada project. “It’s nasty stuff.”

I smell something funny and I don't think it's petroleum coke... I smell enrichment for a few w/ negative externalities borne by many.

[WuDrWu]

OK, so my ex-doctor's brother is a chemical engineer for one of the big oil companies.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Actually it not, world consumption continues to increase year after year except for 2020. They expect consumption will recover and start increasing by 2022 if the world come out of the pandemic.

It actually takes a lot of oil to produce all those plastics we use.

Fossil fuel, particularly coal has been trending down in the States. Natural gas is up and oil is fluctuating. The next generation is okay w/ paying more for their energy as long as it's clean. I'd like to see all mass transportation converted to clean energy first and then hopefully the citizenry follows suit in steady fashion. I drive an electric car and I will never go back.

P.S. I could care less what the rest of the world consumes. Let them continue to poison themselves. We can continue to sell them our excess oil.

[WuDrWu]

Fossil fuel, particularly coal has been trending down in the States. Natural gas is up and oil is fluctuating. The next generation is okay w/ paying more for their energy as long as it's clean. I'd like to see all mass transportation converted to clean energy first and then hopefully the citizenry follows suit in steady fashion. I drive an electric car and I will never go back.

P.S. I could care less what the rest of the world consumes. Let them continue to poison themselves. We can continue to sell them our excess oil.

Yeah, I don't think they are. They might be okay with "someone" paying for it, but are they really okay with paying for it?

[Shockm]

Fossil fuel, particularly coal has been trending down in the States. Natural gas is up and oil is fluctuating. The next generation is okay w/ paying more for their energy as long as it's clean. I'd like to see all mass transportation converted to clean energy first and then hopefully the citizenry follows suit in steady fashion. I drive an electric car and I will never go back.

P.S. I could care less what the rest of the world consumes. Let them continue to poison themselves. We can continue to sell them our excess oil.

Yes you make a lot of sense. China has almost 20% (1.3 Billion) of the worlds population, and India has just less than 20% of the world population, but the good Ole USA (330 Million, less if you count illegals) needs to pay for most of the pollution cleanup.

[wufan]

Spot on!

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

I smell something funny and I don't think it's petroleum coke... I smell enrichment for a few w/ negative externalities borne by many.

If this is true and accurate, is it safer than trucking or more dangerous. That site where the info came from is Malthusian, so forgive me if I question their facts.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Yes you make a lot of sense. China has almost 20% (1.3 Billion) of the worlds population, and India has just less than 20% of the world population, but the good Ole USA (330 Million, less if you count illegals) needs to pay for most of the pollution cleanup.

You're confused.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Yeah, I don't think they are. They might be okay with "someone" paying for it, but are they really okay with paying for it?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/16/americans-want-more-clean-energy-heres-what-theyll-do-to-get-it.html

There's enormous data to support the shift. In fact, I read somewhere last year that younger generations are actually choosing a marginally higher electric bill when given the choice as to where their energy is sourced from.

[SB Shock]

Fossil fuel, particularly coal has been trending down in the States.

But that not what you said.

I have no idea the true environmental impact of the pipeline, but I know fossil fuel consumption has been trending down.

And why even bring in "coal" into the conversation when we are talking about Canadian Oil - oh, yeah because once again you have your facts wrong. Fossil fuel is not decline in the U.S. or the world.

And as the world continues to grow and modernize - more fossil fuel will be used because there are no other cost and energy efficient energy sources available (that at least the liberals will allow).

fossil fuel2.JPG

fossil fuel.JPG

[C0|dB|00ded]

Fossil fuel, particularly coal has been trending down in the States. Natural gas is up and oil is fluctuating. The next generation is okay w/ paying more for their energy as long as it's clean. I'd like to see all mass transportation converted to clean energy first and then hopefully the citizenry follows suit in steady fashion. I drive an electric car and I will never go back.

P.S. I could care less what the rest of the world consumes. Let them continue to poison themselves. We can continue to sell them our excess oil.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/07/the-surprising-decline-in-us-petroleum-consumption/

Oil consumption in the U.S. is fluctuating.